Fox article on RICO

Fox news has a good opinion piece by Judith Curry on the recent call by 20 fake scientists for criminalization of activities by people and organizations who can still objectively read a graph which shows climate models are complete failures.

Advocates like to say that these graphs are unfair due to baselining, then those same advocates publish work which uses the confidence interval of an absolute temperature at a single point to claim they are in the bottom edge of the CI rather than the model trend which has failed miserably. In other words, they are gaming the plot to maximize their match and intentionally ignoring the elephant in the room. Some of these papers have even gone through the fake peer review processes and reached publication. It is truly a shame that climate science has stooped to this level.

In the meantime, those of us with the now criminal skill to read a graph and objectively interpret it, have been told we should be forced surrender our assets and be sent to prison by the always tolerant liberal left. The models failed en masse and anyone who claims otherwise is simply pretending to know science and acting as a political advocate.

But where would punishment of skeptics be without religious involvement. Skeptics have been accused of Galileo syndrome, I found it particularly ironic that the pope himself went to US congress to repeat these same sorts of establishment climate science falsehoods just last week. Like Germans with politics, Catholic leaders seem to work hard to continue to maintain their dismal scientific record.

23 Responses to “Fox article on RICO”

Thanks, Jeff, for all your efforts to protect the integrity of science. Climategate has been an “eye-opener” to those of us who thought it impossible that our federal research agencies would purposely deceive the public.

Today would have been my father’s 109th birthday (1906-2015), I am now over 79 years of age (1936-2015), and I intend to “die with my boots on,” doing whatever I can to help society regain information on the beautiful, bountiful, benevolent and supremely well-designed Universe (Reality, Truth, God).

I can’t imagine a better way to live !

ResearchGate will either help get the truth to the public, or it will identify advocates of such radical thinking for elimination. Knowing that, I posted questions and information on ResearchGate to expedite the process.

A participant challenging the Sun’s pulsar core is a highly ranked scientist, Dr. Kenneth M. Towe, of the Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian Institution is “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men,” and membership of the current Board of Regents: “the Chief Justice, the Vice President, three members of the Senate, three members of the House of Representatives, and nine citizen members appointed by Joint Resolution of Congress.”http://www.si.edu/OGC/legalhistory

After failing to silence critics of AGW dogma over the past six years, AGW believers are probably concerned that the rest of the story will be publicly revealed at the International Global Warming Conference in Paris, France:

stevefitzpatricksaid

Jeff,
The baseline issue is a real one… the top graph looks particularly doubtful.

But that said, your are correct that there is overwhelming evidence the CGMs make crazy high projections of warming, and nearly all are just plain wrong. The treatment of clouds, the presumed rate of increase in atmospheric humidity with surface warming, and large presumed “offsetting aerosols” are likely places the models have it wrong. But I think all this is beside the point. If you could get Gavin, Mike Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and a dozen other well known climate scientists to agree that the true climate sensitivity is way lower than the models suggest, it would not change anything: they would still aggressively advocate immediate draconian reductions in fossil fuel use. Reality does not and will not pay attention to the models; measured future warming really won’t be near what the models project! But this also does not make much difference… the disagreement is one based on values, priorities, goals, and ultimately, a sense of right and wrong. Climate scientists in general do not share your (nor my) priorities and values: for them nothing is worth 1C additional warming. It is a political disagreement which needs to be resolved in the polling booth. Pointing out the failures of models is an interesting exercise, and worthwhile at the margins, but it is not going to change the fundamental policy disagreements.

stansaid

As some have admitted, their use of global warming is simply as a tool to impose marxist “solutions”. The solution never changes. All that ever changes is the crisis that is cooked up to justify the solution.

[and yes that is among the worthy arguments to refute global warming. showing that the advocates are dishonest about their goals does impeach their credibility.]

stansaid

Question — Lucia put up another post on the origin of lukewarmer. I asked a question which was intended to try to define a basic split among skeptics by asking if we had a term for those who think the whole notion of estimating climate sensitivity is daft. Lucia apparently had no interest in the topic. To be fair, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.

I see a category of “skeptics” who are consumed with arguing the details while accepting the notion of a ‘model’ understanding of climate adopted by alarmists. I guess these would be like lukewarmers in methodology but with a minimal, insignificant ECS. A lot of the scientists who have been labelled skeptics seem to fit in this category. That is they seem to be in a agreement with alarmists on the basic notion that it is possible to model climate, but that the alarmists are doing it wrong. Or that there may remain one or more details we don’t yet fully understand, but when we do, we’ll be able to accurately model climate.

My take on R G Brown (Duke physicist who sometimes commented at WUWT) is that he thinks our understanding is so limited and so flawed, and chaotic, non-linear systems so far beyond our ability to model, that the whole notion of modeling climate is just arrogant silliness. My reading of Freeman Dyson’s comments would put him more in this camp. Obviously, this would be a category of ‘skeptic’ that is far different.

Not really very interested in whether a term exists for the latter category, but very interested in highlighting and expanding discussion on the huge, fundamental difference between these groups of skeptics.

Hmm… Fundamentally, of course climate can be modeled but how accurately it can be modeled is the real question. A significant natural variation component is pretty clear from historic evidence but the climate is apparently bounded in its response as we haven’t seen runaway warming, cooling etc over even half million year time frames. From anecdotal evidence like thousand year old tree stumps being uncovered from receeding glaciers, the natural variations are almost certainly greater than many proxy based paleo reconstructions have shown.

I am skeptical we humans will see extreme warming from CO2. I am highly skeptical that even that warming will have a serious negative impact for life on earth. I’m skeptical that warming isn’t actually a general improvement over the present state of climate. I’m skeptical of self-identified luke-warmers who believe that because there is warming, we should do something. It’s a pseudo-science as there is no reason to ‘do something’ when the net effect of not doing something is a positive. It seems like common sense to me but whatever.

CO2 causes warming, it appears to not be much warming and the warming we have seen has produced no negative effects that I can find. If warmer were indeed as bad as claimed, we should have seen some serious storm increases, precipitation changes or droughts yet they show no trend whatsoever.

So I’m rambling I guess but the failure of climate models is not a minor thing. That they show far too much energy accumulation means that there is an error in the net flow through the models. This leads to all kinds of failures as if the heat isn’t in the water surface where it should be according to models, then storms don’t form, sea level doesn’t spike etc… The model fails in even bigger ways than simply temperature.

So where am I? I’m a believer in CO2 warming who is entirely skeptical of nearly everything else in the field from the magnitude, to damages to the do-somethings. Scientifically, it’s all fakery and hand waving after the first basic step. I believe the lack of a runaway temperature situation indicates that we will have rational climate models someday, as soon as we rid ourselves of the extreme left politicians pretending to be scientists.

huntersaid

The problem for me is that the so-called models have turned out to be closer to sales tools. When a salesperson is making a sophisticated sale they nearly always use a nice PowerPoint of graphs to support the stage managed presentation on why the prospect should buy what is being sold.
Political leaders “buy” policies and solutions. The climate obsessed have been selling their claims about a so-called climate crisis since Hansen’s infamous testimony in 1988. The divergence between what they claimed and reality is significant and growing, so the climate committed have to use lots of sciencey looking graphics and dangerous sounding reports to hide this. That the GCMs have never been worth more than eye candy misses the point that their purpose was eye candy in the first place.

Kansaid

“Like Germans with politics, Catholic leaders seem to work hard to continue to maintain their dismal scientific record.”

What is so amazing is that those who used to try to remind us of the Catholic’s “dismal scientific record” are now using the current Popes silliness to try to prove that their current scientific position is so correct.